Appeal 2006-2571
Application 09/759,179
Appellant contends
[t]he Examiner proposes a result that is not supported by the
[Whiteside] method which is directed to creating a stamping
surface having a pattern of closely-spaced features. See Col. 7,
lines 10-18. The Examiner’s proposal to modify this pattern to
include different sized apertures would destroy the closely-
spaced relationship of the [Whitesides] features in the stamping
pattern. For example, by providing a larger aperture in a pattern
seemingly defined by closely-spaced protrusions, the protrusions
defining the larger apertures are no longer closely spaced;
therefore, the larger aperture destroys the close spacing which is
intended to define the pattern, thereby undermining the method
of the [Whitesides] reference. See Col. 7, lines 10-18.
Br. 7. Appellant further contends the Examiner does not present evidence
establishing that Hawkins’ bath etch “applies to the claimed stamp
fabrication” (id.).
The Examiner responds Whitesides’ disclosure that “‘The stamping
pattern includes closely spaced features’ . . . does not exclude larger spaced
features” (Answer 7). The Examiner contends Hawkins “is used to show
that typically a larger aperture would result in a deeper etch compared to a
smaller aperture” (id.). Appellant replies the Examiner’s reliance on
Hawkins “is based on the narrow assumption that a certain etching technique
‘would result in a deeper etch’” which is incorrect “as many etching
techniques for making a larger aperture would result in a shallower etch,”
and for the Examiner’s position to be supported, “the corresponding etching
technique that created the result would also have to be relied upon” (Reply
Br. 7).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013